Boehner warns Obama: If Congress doesn’t authorize the Libya mission by Sunday, you’re in violation of the War Powers Act

posted at 8:05 pm on June 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya. Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission…

Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution. The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.

Therefore, on behalf of the institution and the American people, I must ask you the following questions: Have you or your Administration conducted the legal analysis to justify your position as to whether your Administration views itself to be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution so that it may continue current operations, absent formal Congressional support or authorization, once the 90-day mark is reached? Assuming you conducted that analysis, was it with the consensus view of all stakeholders of the relevant Departments in the Executive branch? In addition, has there been an introduction of a new set of facts or circumstances which would have changed the legal analysis the Office of Legal Counsel released on April 1, 2011? Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011.

I wrote about Boehner’s War Powers brinksmanship a few weeks ago but I’m still not sure what his game is. He was, I think, cowed into demanding that O seek authorization of the mission after Kucinich’s resolution demanding full withdrawal from Libya started to gain traction with Republicans. Boehner knew that having a chunk of the caucus support a measure like that would risk a conservative split between hawks and libertarian types, so he rammed through his own milder proposal instead that put the ball on authorization back in Obama’s court. The White House’s reaction: *Shrug.* Now Boehner is dropping this ultimatum on him, which, if Obama complies, would force … precisely the sort of divisive vote among Republicans in the House that I thought Boehner was trying to avoid by torpedoing Kucinich. I don’t get it.

Maybe JB thinks a court battle over the War Powers Act would be politically useful? It’d certainly underscore the perceptions of Obama among some lefties and libertarians as a lawless Bushian cowboy, eager to protect his kingly prerogative to wage war without anyone’s approval. But it’ll also bolster the perception among hawks that he’s a stronger-than-expected C-in-C who’s unwilling to let Congress pull the rug out from under airmen eager to complete their mission. And of course, a legal battle also risks polarizing Republicans on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. All of which is to say, while I respect Boehner for sticking to the law, he’s sticking to it to a surprising and not necessarily politically advantageous degree. If he’s that down on the mission, why didn’t he force a vote on Kucinich’s resolution without offering any alternatives?

Here’s McCain suggesting that the White House will make the case to Congress for the mission within the next day or two, although he’s unclear on whether that means a request for authorization or just a little “FYI” session. I’m guessing the crux of Obama’s argument will be that there are no servicemen in harm’s way over there, only drones and other unmanned technology, and therefore Congress doesn’t have to approve anything. Oh, by the way: I might have missed it, but did John King ask a single question about the War Powers Act at the debate last night? This subject has, after all, come up now and again over the past three months since Obama decided unilaterally to commit U.S. assets to the Libya mission. One would think he might have been able to slip it in between asking the candidates whether Moe, Larry, or Curly was their favorite stooge or whatever.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I predict Obama will do nothing or maybe he’ll give a speech. The press will cover and ridicule Boehner. RINO’s will say it’s all no big deal. Boehner then, will have a decision to make. I wonder what it will be?

wouldn’t you love to be a fly on a golf ball at that golf game. You know President Crybaby, who it seems has never been challenged in his life, is going to get very, very upset that Speaker Boehner is being mean to him.

It brings to the front the Libya issue — a loser for Obama. Only a small percentage of Americans favor continuing the mission. Pointing out it’s not only stupid but illegal could certainly help.

“Republicans were divided” will be in paragraph 5. In paragraph one will be Congress demanding consultation and a vote in order to stop the Obama Administration from breaking the law while pursuing an unpopular mission.

I wish he had been on that stage last night. Obama’s not fit to carry that man’s briefcase and it would be readily apparent over the course of the campaign.

As to the substance of what he said, he’s exactly right. On day 90 we have a real Constitutional problem and I would solve it by voting to cut off funding if he fails to comply with the law. What McCain fails to understand is that a rogue president is more of a threat to this country, and the world, than a pissant Libyan dictator.

canopfor on June 14, 2011 at 8:26 PM
===================================

As to the substance of what he said, he’s exactly right. On day 90 we have a real Constitutional problem and I would solve it by voting to cut off funding if he fails to comply with the law. What McCain fails to understand is that a rogue president is more of a threat to this country, and the world, than a pissant Libyan dictator.

flyfisher on June 14, 2011 at 8:41 PM

flyfisher:Its great to hear a straight shooter,and get real
info,and yes,I too wish,West would throw his hat
in!!

For similar reasons, presumably, rather than repealing the numerous “legislative vetoes” on the statute books that were clearly struck down by Chadha, in the years following that historic decision the Congress instead enacted more than 200 (clearly unconstitutional) legislative vetoes.

There’s nothing stopping Kucinich and other like minded congressmen from suing The One for WPA violations (which he’s been doing from day 1 of the Libya mission as there was no imminent threat to US interests). So why haven’t they?

Colonel, I just need a copy of the transfer order. Santiago’s transfer order. For the file.
- For the file?
- Yeah.
Of course you can have a copy. I’m here to help any way I can. You believe that, don’t you, Danny? That I’ll help any way I can? The corporal will take you by Personnel and get it for you. But you have to ask me nicely.

- I beg your pardon?
- You have to ask me nicely. I can take bullets, bombs and blood. I don’t want money or medals. What I do want is for you, with your
faggoty uniform and Harvard mouth, to extend me some fucking courtesy. You got to ask me nicely.

Colonel, I just need a copy of the transfer order. Santiago’s transfer order. For the file.
- For the file?
- Yeah.
Of course you can have a copy. I’m here to help any way I can. You believe that, don’t you, Danny? That I’ll help any way I can? The corporal will take you by Personnel and get it for you. But you have to ask me nicely.

- I beg your pardon?
- You have to ask me nicely. I can take bullets, bombs and blood. I don’t want money or medals. What I do want is for you, with your
faggoty uniform and Harvard mouth, to extend me some f—ing courtesy. You got to ask me nicely.

Kadafy is a thug who needs killing. And if Obama said that putting him in a box was the mission, I’d support it.

But the mealy-mouthed nonsense he’s stated for the mission doesn’t make sense; it’s all about “sending messages”, etc. One would think that a lesson of the first Iraq war is that leaving one of these dudes in power means they win, no matter how badly we kick their ass in the field.

The Speaker has the votes to shut off funding for the DoD, and its on going operations. Steven Den Beste and flyfisher understand the real dangerous path that the president is walking down. Real lives, American lives are at stake here. Some one from the the presidents national security team should remind him of this little fact.

I don’t think that word means what you think it does. An ultimatum would include a threat, a formulation of “do this or else”. There is no “or else” to Boehner’s message. There isn’t even a demand, just a request.

All of which is to say, while I respect Boehner for sticking to the law, he’s sticking to it to a surprising and not necessarily politically advantageous degree.

I think there are several advantages to forcing the President to honor the War Powers Act.
First….this will put a lot of democrats on the spot.It was only a few years ago that liberals were in the streets yelling “no blood for oil” and angry about Bush going into Iraq…a country that had not attacked us and after the invasion….we found posed no imminent threat.
To protect Obama…these same liberals on the Hill will have to “vote for war”….not only vote for war…but a war against an oil rich country that did not attack us and posed no imminent threat.
Let’s get these “anti-war” democrats on record with their votes and pound their base with their “new love for war” all the way to 2012.

Second…..Obama has changed his rationale for going to war in Libya(civilian and no fly zone quickly turned into regime change)… and has gone against his own stance that a President has to get Congressional approval before launching a military attack against another country.
These ads write themselves and will go nicely with the economic ads that will play out into 2012.

Third…..Republicans strong on National defense have plenty of reasons not to vote for this war in Libya.
1. The President never laid out a plan,firm rational,or exit plan before launching this war from the Beaches in Rio.
2.…Considering our Problems in Pakistan,Iran,and the Afghanistan war….this “war of choice” in Libya is pretty far down on our priority list.
Obama himself said “I don’t believe in Dumb Wars”…..Republicans should hold him to this and demand our attention and resources be channeled in more important areas.

3.…Obama continuously says “America is in the backseat….NATO has taken the lead”….well then America pulling out should not be a problem then right. …..
4.…..Can we afford to open up other fronts against the jihad when we have not taken care of the wars we are currently in.Obama claimed “Days not Weeks” and we are now at nearly 800 billion dollars and counting.This war,like most of Obama’s policies and actions….is going way over budget and is not playing out like what he sold to the American people.

Republicans need to make a strong stand here and make the democrats own this open ended war. Put them on record supporting it.Qaddafi being gone is not going to solve the civil war in Libya and the world is watching and wondering right now why going into Libya was so important but they look the other way concerning Syria.

Boehner’s doing fine. He’s showing up how lawless Obama is within the framework of what the House is able to do. Issa, too, slowly but surely. I think some people seem to want the Pubbies to just literally spit on the House floor and kick arses. Nice image, but it’s not going to happen.
Defund the Libyan war, or make a convincing argument for it. Either way, the House wins, Obama loses.
I’m sure Boehner will wipe the floor with Bambi on the golf course, too. But he won’t crow about it; what’s the point?

He now has to both defend his hawkish actions – tp the far left; while attempting to mitigate his “tough foreign military policy” which is nothing more than a facade.

A win/win.

Lets remember – The Dunce is fundraising now… and now is when you hit the checkbooks with key issues they pay on… or decide to pass on.

And the Rep “split” has nothing to do with anything, nor will it make them look bad; for the onus is on Bambi to blink and propose some form of “War Allowance”, which would cause far left Dems heads to explode before Reps had a chance to chime in. Good lord, even Feinberg is calling for the end to the war – and she and the hubby make big bucks on wars. (contrary to moron liberals)

I think you may be misreading the hawks… My family is mostly military, straight ticket (R) voters, and they’re all sour on Libya (the “why are we even there??” war) and souring on Afghanistan.

Lehosh on June 15, 2011 at 10:27 AM

I can hardly blame them. With ROE’s that would make the French proud, nevermind a lethargic and cowardly populace, it’s all pointless. Even worse, what gains we do make will go the way of the dodo if the nightmare of national bankruptcy comes true.